Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:25am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

QESdunn: on 10/3/12 at 9:49am UTC, wrote http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/building_universes This book provides...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/28/12 at 2:44am UTC, wrote Dear James, Thanks for getting back to me! What I am trying to do is to...

QESdunn: on 9/27/12 at 17:12pm UTC, wrote QESdunn@aol.com

QESdunn: on 9/27/12 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote Ben, I will be responding to you shortly. I received an automatic...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/26/12 at 22:21pm UTC, wrote Dear James, Your essay is fascinating and contains information that could...

James Dunn: on 8/16/12 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote kilometers, not meters

James Dunn: on 8/14/12 at 20:13pm UTC, wrote So P/h = (1/t)^2 = c^2/(300,000 meters)^2 Which is the separable...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: QESdunn (TOE+) - Building Universes of Our Design by James Dunn [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James Dunn wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 12:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

Quantum Entangled Systems (QES} [copyright 2012 James Dunn] is not strictly a Theory of Everything; a buildable foundation of systems in which Extreme Relativity is supported, allowing for the creation of alternate dimensional spaces (TOE+); universes of our design. QES predicates upon a fundamental causal entity from which all of physics is built; non-relativistic properties of entanglement differentially deduced from many publications of experimentation. QES provides the experimental pathway to provide separable control of time, space, gravity, energy, force, and sub-atomic particles. QES is intended to support the "foundation" of ALL TOE; including E8, MOG, Standard Model, CTMU, Relativity, Virtual Relativity, String Theory, Holographic Universe... as they are all potentially implemented perspectives (alternate dimensional spaces) within an isolated or superimposed QES environment. Outcomes provided by the inferred control of these relationships are knowledge mining and inception; as well as usual relationships such as warp drive, teleportation, seemingly paranormal relationships like global consciousness... In a relativistic universe, non-relativistic constituents are difficult to identify and the most easily identified are referred to as "instantaneous". Therefore, the foundations of non-relativistic physics needs advanced tools to explore non-relativistic relationships deduced from differential experimentation; and one such tool is provided. The building-blocks to construct physics is accomplished through non-relativistic causal properties of entanglement and the systems of Relativity (aliasing) that evolve from entangled magnitude assertions of evolving causal connectedness. All observable physics has predictable outcomes and is inextricably entwined with separable causality systems; the Standard Model as a proof. ANY one artifact in observable physics related by Relativity subtends all observable physics to be causally linked to Relativity; inclusive of all observable instantaneous artifacts. Recursive/Scalar causality systems versus Evolutionary/Scalar causality systems create the Space/Time and similarly the Higgs Field/Higgs Boson gravity causal relationships.

Author Bio

Electrical Engineer and Program Manager for Educational Grants

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 16:23 GMT
1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

Interesting paper but got lost; the "moderator as feedback versus feed-forward" caught my eye.

Approaching problem from "0" time it would seem that the question, "Why do ALL things do what they do?" is apropos.

One (of my many fold) approach to this contest looks at E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present? Feed back and reverse related to energy and power?

Comment? (may use in end notes)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I very much appreciate your identification of sections that are difficult to read. I have these relationships layed out nicely in my mind, but that means I may take certain relationships for granted; making it difficult for others to read.

The feedback and feed forward relationships are in regard to non-relativistic causal relationships. Time and Space are relativistic relationships. Relativistic Relationships are formed by aliasing of the Non-relativistic causal systems of interaction.

In a non-precise analogy: Think of a lake of water. The water does not define the waves or boundaries upon its surface. The waves are likened to the Relativistic physics superimposed upon the underlying Non-relativistic causal foundations.

A wave can exist in any form, but if the causal foundations are changed, then the wave characteristics change profoundly.

For a time (must be careful here), a wave can exist without appearing to disturb the remainder of the pond surface. The underlying molecules morph to interactively support the surface condition.

Time and Space are Relativistic relationships, that DO NOT directly exist in the Non-Relativistic causal foundations. But there is a separable connection. To separably control time, bias the non-relativistic systems to manipulate the connectedness of the systems of causal step events to cause a bending of relativistic space/time relationships.

Does this clarify anything? Or is it still as easy to see as a fish in mud?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 18:29 GMT
I just noticed that I did not make immediately obvious that the Non-Relativistic foundations, as with quantum entanglement and gravitational aberration, are "instantaneous".

Non-relativistic interactions simply have no reference to time or space. Time and Space ONLY have reference in those contexts in our Relativistic physics. We exist as a superposition upon the instantaneous foundations.

Instantaneous does not mean anything except "without reference to". Think of a point where an infinite number of connections originate from the same point, forming a sphere (so to speak). Any interaction with that point relative to any two causal outcomes would appear to be an instantaneous relativistic property. This is the foundation of a scalar property; one to many. This is not to mean that this is actually how the universe is set up; experimentation will need to be done to determine the actual features.

This static causal constant relationship can be inferred to ba a Singularity (just a word). Any constant causal relationship in QES is referred to as a Singularity. If it evolves, it is not a Singularity. Singularities form the relative structure in the non-relativistic foundation, upon which relativity is superimposed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Dunn wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 20:13 GMT
So P/h = (1/t)^2 = c^2/(300,000 meters)^2

Which is the separable magnitude of time related to the speed of light.

This of course excludes the systems of causality that connect space(meters) to time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Dunn replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 19:38 GMT
kilometers, not meters

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear James,

Your essay is fascinating and contains information that could potentially be very useful to me in what I am trying to do. I would like to ask you some questions, but I see that there hasn't been much activity on your thread lately, so I am not sure if you still check it regularly. I would email you but don't see an address on your paper. If you see this message, I'd be grateful if you would email me at bdribus@math.lsu.edu. In the meantime, I think you may also find my essay interesting: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. It involves an analogous viewpoint, though expressed in a somewhat different way.

Take care,

Ben Dribus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

QESdunn replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
Ben,

I will be responding to you shortly. I received an automatic notification from FQXi. I recently published a related book "Building Universes using Extreme Relativity". In that expanded effort, I sight a pathway for developing transfer functions from particle physics to non-relativistic quantum causality. I look forward to reading your essay on the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

QESdunn replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
QESdunn@aol.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 02:44 GMT
Dear James,

Thanks for getting back to me! What I am trying to do is to study the fundamental structure of spacetime, quantum gravity, and unification by means of causal structures (i.e. directed graphs). I use a generalized version of Feynman’s sum-over-histories method. There are obvious analogies to computing (sequential computing corresponds to causal sequences, and parallel computing corresponds to spacelike separation.) I noticed that your paper contains many similar features, and probably includes things I have not thought of. Hence, I have some questions:

1. I am not sure what your view of fundamental spacetime structure is. You hint that spacetime is emergent when you identify time as “evolutionary causality” and space as “scalar and recursive causality” on page 4, but I am not certain what the exact interpretation is.

2. On a related note, when you discuss “scalar causality,” you mention “billions or more of simple causal connections through alternate pathways.” By “simple,” do you mean that there is a fundamental “quantum” or "unit" of causality? By “alternate pathways,” do you mean that the pathways are “already there,” or is this just a way of talking about which causal relations “actually do happen?” The point of these questions is that I am trying to understand if the causal relationships occur “in” some spacetime or network or other structure, or if they define “spacetime.”

3. I am trying to understand how “relativity” comes in. When you discuss “instantaneous feedback,” etc., it seems as though there must be an independent notion of time. What does a “frame of reference” look like?

I have further questions, but I can ask them more intelligently after I know the answers to these first few questions. I try to explain fairly precisely what my approach is in my essay, so hopefully we can get on the same wavelength. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:25 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.